After several days of inactivity, this discussion has been ended. If you wish to continue it, please remove this note and notify all users involved in this discussion.
This discussion has been enacted, to discuss ownership of articles. However, the rules we abide by on this are located at Wikia:Ownership, and will NOT be changed. Feel free to join in on the discussion, but be sure to assume good faith with regards to other editors, we are all here to improve this wiki, and be respectful by not flaming or trolling other members. Thank you.

The question of ownershipEdit

In light of recent events within this Wiki the time has come for the community, as a whole, to resolve the question of ownership rights when it comes to creative works placed within this Wiki. What I mean by "creative works" are the creations of both individuals (rulers of nations) and groups (alliances) that document such things as 1) Nations within CyberNations 2) Alliances of those Nations and 3) Pacts and Agreements between those alliances.

It is my viewpoint that a "ruler" of a nation has ownership rights over the information created in this Wiki to document their nation. It is also my viewpoint that Alliances have ownership rights over the information created in this Wiki to document their alliance, and that information placed in this Wiki to document pacts and other intra-alliance agreements are the ownership of those participating alliances. I also hold that, as with other ownership rights in Real Life (RL), these rights can be: retained, given away, sold, and delegated in terms as the owner of the work deems fit.

Obviously no one has the right to create works within this Wiki that violate Terms of Service or the laws of the State and Country in which the servers of this Wiki reside.

Others wish to force a philosophy of "anyone can edit anything" for any work within this Wiki upon the whole community of this Wiki. There have been recent examples of the use of this philosophy to substantially alter the content of a work created by an alliance, when the person doing the alteration was not a member of that alliance and had not previously obtained permission to make such drastic alterations. It is even more disturbing that this action was done by someone given Admin Powers.

I propose that for the duration of one month this question be put to the whole CyberNations Wiki community for resolution. The details of the resolution of this question are that each registered member of this Wiki be sent a message by placing on their Talk Page a reference to this topic. That votes of "yes" or "no" be entered here to the question of Should anyone be able to edit anything within this Wiki, including making substantial changes to the content of an entry that documents a Nation or an Alliance when the person making that alteration has not obtained permission to make such substantial changes? Key Stroke 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not something for debate. All wikis, including this one, follow the rule that anyone can edit. Read what it says below the edit box: "Please note that all contributions to Cyber Nations Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors, and are released under the GNU Free Doc License. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. You do not own any contributions or articles, and anyone may edit any unprotected page." That is how it is. Aido2002((talk)) 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Angela said that this is something to be resolved by the whole CyberNations Wiki community on her talk page, and that is what I am initiating. So it is something up for debate. We need to put an end to the tyrany of the recently appointed admins, in this regard. Do not remove this vote, it will be reported to Angela if you do. Key Stroke 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't, nor was i intending to, remove this vote. However, we don't have a tyranny. It simply comes down to the fact that if people can edit their article, and nobody else can, than you get bias, confusion, and bad articles. Plus, it brings up the question of who can edit articles on wars, or any other thing that affects anyone? This is a collaborative effort. Aido2002((talk)) 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The vote has started. The time for debate is over. I'm going to move my vote to the end one last time. Please do not interupt the vote again. Key Stroke 20:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interrupting the vote. We have not had a real discussion. Aido2002((talk)) 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You have been capricious and arbitrary and dictatorial in your pronouncements of how things will be done here, all from your seat of "admin power". Just look at your first response to this vote: "This is not something for debate". Now that you see that you are not absolute in your position you ask for even more debate. We have had plenty of discussion prior to this vote over the RIA debacle. Let the vote proceed without further interruption. Key Stroke 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, I said that its not for debate, but if you want to, sure, waste your time. I am not in absolute power, but this is not the sort of thing that goes up for discussion. But, once again, you can, but it is nothing more than a suggestion. Aido2002((talk)) 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The Idea of Ownership. First, let me direct you to my mission statment. I, as an official of this wiki, will uphold the mission set forth here. This wiki is a collection of information. I will work to improve the quality of the information here and improve the quality of the wiki in general. This wiki will remain a collection of information, and anything uninformative shall be removed. In my opinion everyone has the right to edit anyone else's page in instances of grammar, spelling, updating format, etc. The basic housekeeping. I also think that a Nation should be able to dictate what is on its nation page for the most part, as well as pages about individuals etc. I believe that conflict pages, or pages that pertain to more than one nation (ex Maroon War, October Massacre) do not belong to anyone. Alliance pages should also have free run of their page. Basically, except for grammar and teh like, An article should be edited only by those who have some connection to it, or to update public knowledge. Public Knowledge is anything posted on the CN boards. Now, I also believe in my mission statement.

This wiki will remain a collection of information, and anything uninformative shall be removed. Uninformative is subjective. What went on at the RIA site, at the top was wrong. If something would be banned on the CN forums, then it should not take place here. Keystroke says that RIA was offensive by my standards, but it is offensive by Cyber Nations standards Board Rules located here. User:Key Stroke says that the wiki is an extension of the game, and therefore should follow game rules. If this is true, then User:Key Stroke would know that the buttsecks train and the symbol pictures on the RIA page was not appropriate and shouldn't be arguing with the decision made to move it. I will not interfere with this poll, or do anything different except uphold my mission statement. J Andres 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose a vote, there has not been any talk whatsoever, and since the most active people in this discussion are me, j andres, adio, and key stroke, and only keystroke is strongly supporting his opinion. I feel this would be a disservice to discussion because unless key stroke piles votes up with what appears to be a slanted vote description, the answer will be yes.

I will not vote, I want to see this discussion continue, I'm going to copy my comments from angelas talk page here, and then read over this page more before I continue... -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN)

My previous comments on User talk:Angela:

Keystroke, I ask you, what do YOU think the line should be, you have suggested that only alliances and rulers be able to edit there page. How can we be certain an editor is part of the alliance? Should I not edit out what appears to be vandalism on the page? We have no way of knowing if the person who makes an entry is really the ruler, or member of the alliance or not, therefore if something looks like vandalism (as the above link clearly does) it should be removed. But later we found out that wasn't "vandalism" it was by the alliance. But where do we draw the line now? Should alliances be able to do anything they want with their page? What about flaming other members, what about random discussions? Could I create a nation called Bob nation then make that article just a gallary of porn? How about just an ongoing discussion between me and others on why we hate *insert race or sex here*? Lets say my alliance is one that doesn't hold up it's treaties with other alliances, and I lie about it on my page, and pretend those deciets never happened, can I do that? Alliances and rulers effectivly have somplete control on what RP info and game info is added to their alliance or nation, but they shouldn't be able to put anything on their page. If we don't allow opposition to edit an alliance page, then we will eventually have forks (such as Criticisms a GPA) this is obviously not useful to people looking through the wiki. The wiki is here to provide the most comprehensive coverage of everything related to CN, and if we allow nation leaders and alliance leaders to put whatever they want on there pages, and restrict whatever they want we will never reach a point where this wiki is really useful and it will eventually collapse into pages and pages filled with worthless spam. I understand where you are coming from and I think a lot of the action was wrong on both sides. The fact that my page was vandalized because I removed discussion from an article (in good faith) should have never happened, but the RIA page shouldn't have been locked. If you take a look at /b/ and the several discussions surrounding it, you would find out that admin intervention was opposed at first, and it could have been handled better, but given a couple days discussion a great solution came out of it that worked for everyone, this isn't the place for this discussion to take place, but I will allow key stroke, or angela to move it to the village pump so that everyone can take part in this discussion so we can come up with the best possible solution.

-- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keystroke says "It is my viewpoint that a "ruler" of a nation has ownership rights over the information created in this Wiki to document their nation [ well as alliance, inter-alliance treaties, ect.]".

To which I agree with, but if the content of a page is not information that documents a nation, or alliance, or if it is not information at all (which the RI page certainly was not), then it has no place here.

I disagree with Aido suggesting this isn't up for discussion, discussion should be encouraged, in all things.

Key stroke said "The vote has started. The time for debate is over." I disagree, you said "I propose that for the duration of one month this question be put to the whole CyberNations Wiki community for resolution." it was less then a day. And by phrasing the vote as you did, you clearly are not doing discussion justice whatsoever. Let discussion actually happen...

I am editing the vote, and putting it at the bottom of the page. I will not remove the vote, but until all sides truly get to discuss and share ideas, this vote is meaningless in my opinion. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on for quite some time. It started over RIA, but then continued over Bible which the discussion even got to talking about deleting Libertarianism. We all know each others positions. You don't want a vote because you know that those who post here will rebell against your draconian and myopic approach to what makes this site good. I assume that the graphics of sexual acts on RIA were a violation of the Terms of Service (or the equavilent) and of course should have been removed. However the best approach would have been to ask the offender to remove them. Failing that then an admin should remove them if they are in violation. In the beginning I was more concerned that a member of my alliance was editing the entry of another alliance without permission and generating potential intra-alliance conflict. You have tried to paint the picture that I approve of the graphic depiction of a sex act that was on RIA. Nothing could be further from the truth. However I would have taken a different approach. As I said, the offender should have been contacted and asked to remove the offensive post. But the editing of RIA went further than that, it edited out content that was mere nonsense also. This is where the line was really crossed and abuse of power occured. Subsequent to the RIA entry being edited, the Bible entry was then threatened with deletion unless it met your standards. That is when this conflict of ideology started to become personal to me. There was nothing offensive in the Bible entry at all. Then the discussion swung aroung to deleting Libertarianism - I suspect most likely because of a desire for retribution against me for defending Bible and for trying to defuse the escalating tension over RIA. Just one month ago things were pretty calm here at this Wiki. As far as I knew no one was vandalizng anyone else's entries. No one was getting upset as we all stuck to our own entries. Since then we have seen some pretty immature people get admin powers and then appoint themselves the judges of what is and what is not a good entry. Violations of Terms of Service are, of course, your responsibility and what occured on the RIA page needed to be addressed (but could have been handled much better). However "quality" of an entry is not your responsiblity. Yes, you can make recommendations (as I have done on Bible myself). But it crosses the line when you take the stance that unless the quality of an entry comes up to your standards then it will be deleted. You all have become drunk with power and abuse of that power always follows, which it has. Moving this discussion so that the links I provided to people would no longer work is just another in a long line of abuses of power that you have demonstrated. Key Stroke 05:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I indented your comment, I hope you don't mind. I edited the RIA page because it had stuff about the alliance, then had what appeared to be vandalism. If you look at pages at any other wiki you will find similar things that are vandalism. I think a valid "standard" is that an article page talk about an article. You said the wiki was for documenting alliances and nations, shouldn't article pages do so? If that criteria (previously described as "my criteria") is too harsh, then what do you suggest. I oppose the vote because I do not believe I fully understand your position. I think you are suggesting that anything not violating ToS should be allowed on a nation/alliance page. Please tell me, explicity, what you believe should be exceptable, and what should not be. Please include these things in your listing:
  1. Content about the article, directly related to CN (number of members or color, ect for alliances. Or nation strength, flag, ect. for nations)
  2. CN RP content about the article (why the nation went to war, alliance diplomacy)
  3. Articles not related to CN (short versions of WP articles with no mention of anything related to CN)
  4. Content within an article not related to the article subject ("mere nonsense", or spam)
  5. Content within an article (or article subjects) that wouldn't be exceptable on the CN forums (spam, flames, trolling)
All comments regarding the moving of this discussion are probably better if left at Talk:Main Page to keep this organized.
Regarding Bible. It wasn't about Cyber Nations, at all. I put it up for deletion because this is a Cyber Nations Wiki. I'm not sure why that is opposed. Putting something up for deletion does not mean it will be deleted, and an artice being deleted does not mean it is lost. If you see Talk:Bible you will see that me and Sheldomar Bolak discussed the subject calmly and he came up with a few edits that made the article much better in my opinion, don't you think so? If you don't, feel free to make changes (it is a wiki after all) or use the talk page to suggest some. If you do, then wasn't it for the best?
As you did so on Talk:Bible, I believe you are assuming bad faith in suggesting that my comments on Libertarianism were not for the benefit of the wiki. I chose not to tag that article with afd (something any editor can do) because I was already making my point. After seeing the definite improvements to Bible after tagging it with afd, I think it would be useful to try to make the same changes to that article.
I only deleted the very minimal, apparantly pointless, and deadest articles. I tagged articles with afd because they seemed to be pointless. My deletions have been largely ignored (as most janatorial actions are), and my afds have been the same, with only one exception, that being bible, and it turned out better. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You do know my position, contrary to what you claim. My position is that as these are products of the imagination the owner of the in-game object about which the article is documenting has the ability to put anything they want on the entry, with the exclusion of those things that violate ToS and/or the laws that govern such media in the state/country where the server resides. Ownersip of the content is limited to that within this Wiki and does not extend to copyright protection. If I imagine that the way my CN nation obtains furs for trade is to kill cute little foxes I should be free to document that on the entry for my nation regardless if it bothers the sensitivities of some admin that may come after you. See my point? The admins must not be the ones to set criteria for what is good content above and beyond what is leagle and allowed by ToS. Key Stroke 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not actually know your opinion because what you think is something I would disagree with in principle ("bizarre" rp) is something I actually encourage and I have every intention of defending. RP is awesome, and if you want to write about how your nation does something, then that's perfectly fine. I'm asking you to define what is good content, no I'm asking you to define what IS content. Should absolutely anything that isn't breaking the ToS and/or the law be worth defending? Are you going to defend nonsense? Let's say I made an article named after my nation, then use that page to show the world some of the amusing non-CN related IM pranks I've pulled. Are you defending that? What if it was half non-CN nonsene and half CN stuff? What if I use the page (named after my CN alliance) and decide to use it as a forum to talk about the PS3, are you defending that? I want you to explicitly state what you think should and should not be allowed on a page. I believe you aren't defending situations like the above that I've described. I could be wrong. But unless we both clearly understand exactly what the other is saying then we won't be able to get anywhere. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Commenting on Keystroke's opinion of "You hsould have notified the owner to take care of it." Although in most forms, this would be acceptable, anyone could edit the page, even a new user, so it could be done by anyone. The only reason why your approach of asking the person to take it off wouldn't work is that most of our contributors come here a few times, then might not come back for a month. We can't just leave that stuff up until them come back. Like I said in the discussion, I wasn't the one who removed Zeep's tale, and I said it should be brought back. And Also, I am for partial ownership rights, but my fear is that if given full rights, people will post things that absolutely don't belong here (the top of the RIA page) and then we wont be able to do anything, or we will, but we will have to go through an insane process instead of just correcting a simple problem. J Andres 11:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote Edit

Vote below A "Yes" means that owners do not have absolute control of all content of there page with no outside moderation whereas "No" means that owners do have exclusive rights to all content of there page.

No Ownership rights should not be violated. Key Stroke 15:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes For the reasons listed above. Although I believe that in most cases alliances and nations should be able to do what they wish text wise with a site. However everyone may make minor edits to fix grammar or the formating of the site to maintain a set style. Also, things that are not allowed to be posted on the CN boards shouldn't be allowed here. Board Rules located here. J Andres 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes It is against the "golden wiki rule." Not only that, but while I agree that simply pointless things should not be here, who gets to decide what is offensive (besides, like I said, things that are simply and clearly pointless). Aido2002((talk)) 21:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes This is a Wiki, not your personal web page... if you don't want it edited, don't put it here. As everyone else has said, read the blurb on the edit page. -- Alphacow talk 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments Edit

Not voting I believe putting up a vote this quickly on such a topic is absurd and I suggest all members take place in the above discussion before putting down a vote. This wiki (as most) is not a democracy, decisions are made by consensus, through discussion. Not nearly enough time has been given to discussion. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes While I understand the Turf protection aspect Key Stroke wants, It stifles creativity and the energy of new members. I would prefer semi-protection of certain pages.Salpta 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikia:Ownership. No one has "control" over any page here. It's up to the entire community (not just bureaucrats, not just alliance members) to determine what content is appropriate and to edit every article here as they see fit and in accordance with community consensus. It is a vital wiki principle that pages are created and maintained collaboratively and not owned by any one person or group. If you need a non-editable page about your nation, then you can link to that on a static HTML site instead, but I believe you will find your content is greatly improved by being part of this wiki which is open to all to edit. Angela talk 13:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not something to vote on, as per Angela's comments directly above. However, if you must vote, keep in mind that the policy WILL NOT be changed. Aido2002((talk))

This is something I will not compromise on. Any attempts to delete or modify entries created by me and in many cases linked-to by me will be met with the strongest effort I can muster. I take this position regardless if the person doing the editing is an admin or not. Key Stroke 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not even think of bringing you CN army into a Wiki War. I have fought one and I will not fight again. Any in game attacks based on actions here on the wiki, the Agressor in the war should recieve a permanent ban. It is ridiculous. J Andres 15:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The text on every edit page says "Please note that all contributions to Cyber Nations Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors". This is true of any wiki and is exactly what makes using a wiki so beneficial - that others can and hopefully will modify your entries. Angela talk 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly discouraging threats on either side. I think talk like the talk above (in this section) is compeltly immature and the easiest way for us to avoid a possible solution. Let's be respectful and I'm positive we can come to a conclusion that works for everyone. I can assure you key stroke that content related to your nation, whether it be factual or rp, will not be removed as long as it is legal. From there, we can discuss maturly. I'm going to go to the Random Insanity Alliance and make sure all the content that is rp in CN is restored as an act of good faith and as a point that rping is perfectly reasonable and encouraged here. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 01:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, wethwer we want to or not, we can't change the rules on this. We must abide by the Wikia:Ownership policy, it applies to all Wikia wikis. Aido2002((talk)) 07:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of what we encourage and discourage here. That policy covering all wikia exists because there is no reasonable way of making this work. But there are certain things we can encourage and discourage such as style things. This could be one of them in some way. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the whole ownership rule is one we are required to abide by. Aido2002((talk)) 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.